Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.569 (2026)

Noncompliance by public employer; penalty.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLICLY FUNDED HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION ACT

Act 152 of 2011

15.569 Noncompliance by public employer; penalty.

Sec. 9.

If a public employer fails to comply with this act, the public employer shall permit the state treasurer to reduce by 10% each economic vitality incentive program payment received under 2011 PA 63 and the department of education shall assess the public employer a penalty equal to 10% of each payment of any funds for which the public employer qualifies under the state school aid act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, MCL 388.1601 to 388.1772, during the period that the public employer fails to comply with this act. Any reduction setoff or penalty amounts recovered shall be returned to the fund from which the reduction is assessed or upon which the penalty is determined. The department of education may also refer the penalty collection to the department of treasury for collection consistent with section 13 of 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.13.

History: 2011, Act 152, Imd. Eff. Sept. 27, 2011

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2015–2015 · leading case: Van Buren Cnty. Educ. Ass'n & Decatur Educ. Support Pers. Ass'n v. Decatur Pub. Schs., 872 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Van Buren Cnty. Educ. Ass'n & Decatur Educ. Support Pers. Ass'n v. Decatur Pub. Schs., 872 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “[MCL 15.569.] B. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE CHARGE BY VBCEA Charging party VBCEA and respondent were parties to a CBA that became effective on July 1,2011, and expired on June 30, 2012.”

City of Wyandotte v. Police Officers Ass'n of Michigan (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “561 to MCL 15.569, which required public employers to achieve a “hard cap” in healthcare benefit payment, or elect, by a majority vote of their city councils, to pay a maximum of 80% of costs (hereafter “the 80/20 option”).”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.